Is it too late to propose to freeze Bitcoin protocol as it is today (noSegWit, no bigger block)?

Hear me out: assume Bitcoin is frozen as it is now: no more forks, no morechange in consensus rules. Call it Bitcoin 1 (BC1). So, how to evolve andscale Bitcoin?

Use a very conservative sidechain, call it Bitcoin 2 (BC2), tightlycoupled, block per block, with Bitcoin 1 chain. No fancy experimentalchanges there: fix the bare minimum to support more general two-waysidechains, linear scalability transaction verification time andtransaction malleability. Can be one way only if that makes it simpleenough: coins sent to BC2 can never come back to BC1.

Miners choose to mine a BC2 block alongside a BC1 block, and it can be donefor free once a BC1 block is found. There may be BC1 blocks in the chainwhose corresponding BC2 blocks are missing (and that is not a big deal),but there will be an economic incentive to mine a BC2 block, sincetransaction fees on that chain will be collected.

The economic adoption is completely voluntary and independent of anyoneelse, doesn't require the strong consensus of SegWit. If it is feasible tocreate a simple enough two way sidechain over BC1, good. If not, economicvalue of BC1 will always be at least that of BC2, but never lower. BC2 mayhave a lower price than BC1 at first, but since it will have every featureof BC1, plus the possibility of massive scalability and instantaneoustransactions with a lightning network built over BC2 (a practicaleconomical advantage), it will most likely value over what BC1 could everbe alone, raising BC1 price with it.

If these predictions are correct, fewer and fewer people will transact BC1,eventually with blocks mined empty except for the coinbase, which the minermay choose to send directly to BC2. If I turn out to be wrong, and peopleprefer to stick to the old BC1 for some reason, BC2 becomes just anotherspeculative altcoin. Thus, everyone migrating should be fully consciousabout the risk of immediate devaluation.

The 2 major risks I see that could hamper the adoption are:- Just plain fear: I find the whole economical incentive scenario of BC2sound and plausible, just as I found Bitcoin sound and plausible when Iheard about it for the first time. I also fear to put my money in BC2, justas I did when I heard about Bitcoin. BC2 case is even worse, because I cansafely hold my coins in BC1 until I am sure BC2 is solid, so at first wemay experience only enthusiast adoption;- Technological inertia: everyone wishing to accept BC2 will have toimplement this payment system as for any other altcoin. Every exchangesupporting both will have to create separated markets for BC1 and BC2.Remember: both chains must be obviously distinguishable. It is evendesirable that the address format in BC2 to be incompatible with BC1 (maybestaring with "2" ?).

Finally, due to the present state of affairs, with impending activation ofsegwit with a promise to hardfork in 3 months, I believe this proposal istoo late, not to mention the stress, emotions and hard feelings of thesituation will make it go largely ill received or ignored. But since Igenuinely believe this to be the best and most conservative way to go withBitcoin, I wrote this anyway.

Please forgive me if something like this was discussed a thousand timesbefore and you wasted your time reading this.